When you passionately argue against a system that provides access to healthcare for those who are probably most in need, you are, for me, arguing from a platform that is completely and utterly morally, ethically and inhumanely spent.
As the world scratched its collective head attempting to comprehend the fantastic spectacle that was the London 2012 opening ceremony, I took to the social network-sphere to take in the wave of pride of a nation who saw an homage to our National Health Service.
A nod, for those who are still confused, to the idea behind the NHS. To the concept that a nation would ensure free access to a healthcare system for all – based on their medical needs and not on their ability to pay.
Was this a political statement? Who can say?
Should an Olympic opening ceremony be the vehicle for such a statement if it were? No – some would say. Emphatically. Passionately.
However.
Stop for a moment.
Consider.
These games – the London bid, were based on the ideal of inspiring a generation. About igniting the imagination and desires of an entire generation. What better message could you possibly hope for the youth of today; the leaders of tomorrow; the minds that will define a nation, than one that embodies the very best of qualities humanity has to offer?
Thinking not of yourself, but of others. Taking care, not just of yourself, but also of your neighbours.
As #NHS began trending on Twitter I was surprised to see the fear, perhaps even hate, for and of the idea of social healthcare.
I was numbed by the comments of those who truly believe(d) that a healthcare system built around the idea that everyone would pay to ensure everyone had access was abhorent.
I wanted to ask those who most vehemently raged against our NHS, those who live on shores from across an ocean, why they were so against putting in place a system that extends the life expectancy of everyone, not just of the affluent.
I wanted to debate the thought that this social ideal was inherently evil, when the counter argument was one that saw no demons in a system that directly links your health to your bank balance.
If money is the route of all evil…
I don’t believe that the opening ceremony was lauding the current state of our NHS; as it is in dire need of improvement. I am not even sure it was making a political plea that we should save it.
However.
Stop for a moment.
In a time when so many countries are weighted down under the burden of an economical recession, when more and more people are struggling to keep a roof over their heads or put food on their tables – ask yourself. What exactly is it that someone could find so repugnant about a system that would ensure that you, yes you – no matter what your financial situation might be tomorrow, do not have to worry about your access to healthcare?
I ask simply because… because… money has no place determining who should continue living!
Mark My Words... 
Well said..
I find that folks are usually happy about the status quo so long as it keeps them privileged. (After all, we can’t all be possibly be getting closer to being “equal” before the afterlife, right?) Sarcasm intended. Furthermore, a national healthcare system appears abhorrent only to those who now have to contribute to it.
Isn’t it a sad indictment in humanity though, that the first thought many of us have, when being asked to help others, is “but what is the cost to me?”
Utopian perhaps and naive most definitely, but what a world it could be – if only…
I have no problem with universal healthcare, and greatly wish that the US would adopt this healthcare system. I know it might be naive of me, but I don’t mind paying more in taxes if it means helping people. Once I’ve work to the bone and have nothing left, then maybe I’ll want to keep my money… but for now, I like the idea of giving.
I think I am equally naive, as I too have no problem with making contributions into the system to ensure it is there for everyone.
The issue of those drawing upon the resources when they have never made a contribution and probably never will is a completely different discussion that people should not confuse with the argument of whether the service should exist at all.
Whether it was a political statement or not I thought it was a great signal to the world that we are proud of having created, and kept alive, a National Health Service, in all that that entails…. and for the home grown politicians, having created it, we shall keep it, thank you very much.
Especially since privatisation has proved so successful in so many other sectors (sarcasm disclaimer).
Of course.
I am ashamed of my fellow human beings who would oppose such an idea. And I am upset that the awful place where most of their arguments come from (the oppressors and their lies, which are believed by the easily led) exists.
I would like to say that it angers me. But t would be more accurate to say it disappoints and saddens :(.